Agulto vs. Tecson

The absence of mandatory notice of pre-trial to counsel renders the pre-trial and all subsequent proceedings void for violating due process, and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to challenge such a patent nullity, even if appeal is available.

An action for damages was filed in the RTC. After initial delays and a temporary dismissal for failure to prosecute, the case was revived and scheduled for pre-trial. The core dispute arose from how the pre-trial date was set and whether the defendants were properly notified, leading to them being declared as having waived their right to present evidence.

• Original Filing: RTC of Quezon City, Branch 79, Civil Case No. Q-97-31977 (Action for Damages)
• Lower Court Decision:
  • November 19, 1998: Complaint dismissed for failure to prosecute.
  • December 2, 1998: Dismissal order reconsidered; complaint revived; pre-trial set.
  • June 17, 1999: Order allowing respondent to present evidence ex parte due to petitioners' absence and failure to file pre-trial brief.
  • July 12, 1999: Decision in favor of respondent (P170,000 aggregate damages).
  • September 24, 1999: Denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, motion to cite counsel in contempt, and motion to set aside decision.
  • Appeal: Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 55955)
  • CA Decision: September 27, 2000 — Dismissed the petition, holding ordinary appeal under Rule 41 was the proper remedy, not certiorari, and finding no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
  • SC Action: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the CA decision.

• Original Action: On August 25, 1997, respondent William Z. Tecson filed an action for damages against petitioners and Maribel Mallari in the RTC QC. Petitioners filed an answer claiming malicious prosecution and lack of cause of action.
• Dismissal and Revival: On November 19, 1998, the RTC dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute. Respondent moved for reconsideration, and the RTC revived the complaint on December 2, 1998, scheduling pre-trial for January 21, 1999.
• April 29 Pre-trial: The pre-trial was reset to April 29, 1999. On that date, petitioner Rolando Agulto and counsel were informed by an RTC employee that the presiding judge was on leave.
• Suggestion of Date: Petitioners' counsel suggested June 17, 1999 for the next pre-trial date. The RTC employee advised that the setting was unofficial and depended on the court's calendar and respondent's counsel.
• June 17 Pre-trial: The pre-trial proceeded on June 17, 1999. Petitioners and their counsel were absent. Only respondent signed the minutes from the April 29 conference indicating the reset date.
• Ex Parte Order and Judgment: The RTC allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte due to petitioners' failure to appear and file a pre-trial brief. On July 12, 1999, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of respondent, ordering petitioners to pay P170,000 in moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
• Denial of Motions: Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, to cite counsel in contempt, and to set aside the decision. The RTC denied these on September 24, 1999, explicitly stating it did not send a notice of pre-trial because petitioners' counsel "suggested" the date and was thus deemed notified.

• The RTC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it denied their motions on September 24, 1999.
• The RTC violated their constitutional right to due process by deciding the case on mere technicalities rather than the merits.
• Certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to assail the RTC's void orders, not an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.

• The proper remedy was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Petitioners failed to show a valid cause for their absence at the pre-trial; therefore, the RTC committed no abuse of discretion in allowing ex parte presentation of evidence and denying petitioners' subsequent motions.

• Procedural Issues: Whether a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy to challenge the RTC's orders, instead of an ordinary appeal under Rule 41.
• Substantive Issues: Whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in allowing ex parte presentation of evidence and denying petitioners' motions despite the lack of formal notice of pre-trial. Whether a party's failure to file a pre-trial brief and appear at pre-trial justifies ex parte proceedings without prior service of notice of pre-trial on counsel.

• Procedural: Certiorari was the proper remedy. While ordinary appeal is the general remedy for final judgments, the SC allows a writ of certiorari in exceptional instances where the court's order is a patent nullity. Because the RTC proceeded without mandatory notice of pre-trial, its orders were void, justifying a Rule 65 petition despite the theoretical availability of appeal.
• Substantive: The RTC gravely abused its discretion. Under Section 3, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, notice of pre-trial must be served on counsel (or the party if unrepresented). This notice is mandatory; its absence renders the pre-trial and all subsequent proceedings void for violating due process. A counsel's mere suggestion of a date is provisional and does not substitute for official court notice. The duty to notify rests with the court (specifically the clerk of court under Rule 20), not the parties. The duties to file a pre-trial brief and appear at pre-trial only arise after notice is served. Without notice, a party cannot be faulted for failing to file a brief or appear.

• Mandatory Notice of Pre-trial — Under the 1997 Rules, notice of pre-trial must be served on counsel (or the party if without counsel). The absence of this notice renders the pre-trial and all subsequent proceedings void, as it violates the party's constitutional right to due process.
• Certiorari as Remedy for Patent Nullity — Even when appeal is available, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be entertained if the assailed order or judgment is a patent nullity resulting from grave abuse of discretion.
• Suggestion of Date ≠ Notice — A counsel's suggestion of a pre-trial date is merely provisional and subject to the court's calendar. It does not relieve the court of its duty to serve formal notice once the date is calendared.

• Section 3, Rule 18, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires notice of pre-trial to be served on counsel (or the party if no counsel). Applied to emphasize that the court must serve notice on counsel, who is then charged with notifying the party.
• Section 5, Rule 18, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides the adverse consequences for failure to appear at pre-trial (dismissal for plaintiff, ex parte presentation for defendant). Applied to show these consequences only attach after proper notice is given.
• Section 6, Rule 18, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requires pre-trial briefs to be filed and served at least three days before the pre-trial date. Applied to show that without notice of the pre-trial date, parties cannot be expected to know when to file their briefs.
• Section 1, Rule 20, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Assigns the clerk of court the duty to keep the calendar of cases for pre-trial. Applied to show that the responsibility for calendaring and notifying rests with the court, not the parties.